More data on racial mixing

In reply to an email I received on this topic.
Consider age

To what extend are bright women opting to have black babies rather that
pursue education?

You're claiming these are "low quality" women.

That is NOT obvious.
It's true that controlling for age will reduce the gap in educational attainment, but it makes no sense to control for age unless you can give me some reason to believe girls who become pregnant at young ages are as intelligent as those who don't (nevermind more intelligent!). Everything I've read and observed leads me to believe this is not the case. I believe younger mothers tend to be less intelligent and women who reproduce with blacks at any given age are less intelligent than those who reproduce with whites, and the numbers line up with this:

For Non-Hispanic White mothers (of white vs. mulatto children) aged 20-24:
Less than HS: 16.7% vs. 21.2%
B.A. or higher: 7.0% vs. 3.2%

For Non-Hispanic White mothers (of white vs. mulatto children) aged 25-29:
Less than HS: 5.7% vs. 11.8%
B.A. or higher: 37% vs. 16.2%

For Non-Hispanic White mothers (of white vs. mulatto children) aged 30-34:
Less than HS: 2.8% vs. 6.8%
B.A. or higher: 54.2% vs. 30.5%
We are seeing is the less bitchy, more compliant women get grabbed by
blacks -- basically the women that are susceptable to indoctrination.
Along with thousands of other variables, NLSY97 contains information on respondents' sexual partners, including race. What do we find when we compare white females who report black sexual partners to those who don't?

The former are fatter (mean BMI: 27.8 vs. 25.4), dumber (median ASVAB math/verbal percentile: 52.2 vs. 61.1), and bitchier. According to self-ratings, they are more quarrelsome:
3.72 vs. 3.84 (where 1 means quarrelsome and 5 means agreeable)

More difficult:
2.38 vs. 2.13 (where 1 means cooperative and 5 means difficult)

More stubborn:
3.22 vs. 2.84 (where 1 means flexible and 5 means stubborn)

Less dependable:
1.73 vs. 1.60 (where 1 means dependable and 5 means undependable)

They're also more likely to report they lie or cheat (lie or cheat only sometimes: 60.3% vs. 45.3%; lie or cheat often: 5.8% vs. 3.0%)

Those with mulatto children are even fatter (mean BMI: 29), dumber (median ASVAB math/verbal percentile: 45.9) and as bitchy or bitchier on the metrics mentioned above.


Looking at data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which followed a different cohort, results are similar. White females who have ever had a black sexual partner are fatter (mean BMI: 28.8 vs. 26.2) and less intelligent (median ADD HEALTH Picture Vocabulary Test score: 99 vs. 105).

As rated by interviewers, they are less attractive (3.29 vs. 3.63, where 1 = very unattractive and 5 = very attractive) and have less attractive personalities (3.53 vs. 3.77) and worse grooming (3.31 vs. 3.61). Unsurprisingly, they are more likely to test positive for sexually transmitted diseases (4.3% vs. 1.8% for chlamydia; 7.2% vs. 1.0% positive for trichomoniasis).

Incidentally, they also have darker hair on average, refuting the fiction promoted by Jewish pornographers and sexually-frustrated Meds that blondes are particularly apt to mix with blacks. The percent of white females in this sample who report any black sex partner, by hair color:
Black 8.2%
Brown 5.0%
Blond 3.9%
Red 3.9%

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Those with mulatto children are even fatter (mean BMI: 29), dumber (median ASVAB math/verbal percentile: 45.9) and as bitchy or bitchier on the metrics mentioned above."

Is the site a joke/satire? If it is, it's quite funny. If it isn't.....Well, I'm sure my comments don't need to add to the personal issues of the author.

Anonymous said...

hi, agnostic.

Anonymous said...

Agnostic? What, like you have a faith? That would make this site even more disturbing.

Have your failures in life bowed you so low to resort to this? I know it may be humbling to see your own smallness in life.

Anonymous said...

haha. the sheer faggotry of that denial confirms the ID. what a dishonorable little bitch. but we already knew that.

Anonymous said...

?

Anonymous said...

history is biography.

TGGP said...

Looks like you're not the only one into statistical measures of bitchery.

Anonymous said...

n/a,

Interesting post.

For the personality measures, I would be curious to know the standard deviations for each group (and whether the differences are statistically significant). The pattern certainly fits with those whites I've known who had negro sex partners.

The percent of white females in this sample who report any black sex partner, by hair color:
Black 8.2%
Brown 5.0%
Blond 3.9%
Red 3.9%


What is the breakdown by hair colour of women in the sample? Do you mean that 8.2% of black-haired women had negro sex partners, or that 8.2% of the women with negro sex partners had black hair?

Anonymous said...

Do you mean that 8.2% of black-haired women had negro sex partners, or that 8.2% of the women with negro sex partners had black hair?

Sorry, this wasn't phrased well. What I meant to ask is:

Do you mean that 8.2% of black-haired women had negro sex partners, or that 8.2% of women had negro sex partners and also had black hair.

n/a said...

The former.

Anonymous said...

Thanks. I wonder whether ethnicity would have much effect on the percentages.

Anonymous said...

It's no surpise that white women who date black men are white trash. Just walk through a WalMart

Anonymous said...

Great post. Please, keep up with the good work. Always remember to be rigorous, cause we are subjected to a level of scrutiny that almost nobody else has to endure.

Great. This corroborates what so many of us have detected in our private observations.

Louis said...

Biological problems with mixed-race marriage and adoption:

http://sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html

Anonymous said...

What is the percentage of ignorance in the author of the study and those who support it?

Anonymous said...

Quite low...he's citing facts to support readily observable reality. Those who call this 'ignorant' are in denial.

I've noticed that white women that date black men are fatter, uglier and sluttier than the average. They also take pride in dating a black man (makes sense. They have no pride in their appearance, so might as well take pride in being 'different')

- Abaddon

Anonymous said...

The statistics back up what those with eyes to see have observed. The truth bears no malice. Good work. :)

Anonymous said...

The worst thing about coal burners is that they spawn more negroes

Anonymous said...

"Incidentally, they also have darker hair on average, refuting the fiction promoted by Jewish pornographers...

Speaking of Jewish pornographers:

Masters of Porn.

Rabbi Dresner's Dilemma.

Unknown said...

White men choose white or asian women. This leaves some leftover white women.

Black men are not accepted by asian women, so there are ample black men. And some of them don't want a black woman. They take a leftover white woman.

Anonymous said...

What was the point or message of this article. It seems to have no net benefit to the reader, other than to say: "I shouldn't be mad at that nigger, she's with him because she is stupid". Looool. Vaginal moisture isnt dependent on intelligence, buddy.

When are conservative/Republican White Americans going to learn that minorities are not their enemy. Minorities (blacks, Muslims etc) are generally conservative. Republicans could win elections and enforce policies that actually matter if they allied themselves with their natural allies.

Blacks arent going anywhere. They're more American than your typical White person. They've been here for 200-600 years as descendents of slaves, whereas as most Whites are immigrants after the 1940s.

Anonymous said...

"Most Whites are immigrants after the 1940s" ? This is absurd. Where did you get such an idea ? What's this about conservative Republicans ? No one else has mentioned political parties although it does seem almost certain that a much larger percentage of white women who have been or will be sexually penetrated at some time in their lives by black males are Democrats and liberals rather than Republicans and conservatives, but so far as I know, nobody has attempted any survey on this. Liberal women are more thoroughly brainwashed into feeling obligated to prove how unprejudiced they are. One has serious doubts about the accuracy of statistics about how many white girls have ever been scored by a brother: probably, many just don't admit it later. Also, it's possible that college educated white women are more likely to have abortions if a black ( or even a a white ) man impregnates them . As for blondes: does this mean only real blondes ? Black males dos do indeed go for the blondes when given half a chance. Some white women actually do want sex with blacks, and the only white girl I ever knew who actually lost her virginity to one (when she went to an interracial summer youth camp) was a 16 year old crusading young left winger from Westchester County, New York who bleached her hair from brown to blonde just before going there where a black boy deflowered her. She also got fat after she stopped using amphetamines. Off hand, I don't know the age of consent in New York State in 1968 when it happened. Was this statutory rape ? Anyway, to the black male, a white woman is not only a sex object but also a status symbol: when he can make a sexual conquest of a white girl he can feel that he is degrading the white race, and nobody is whiter than a blond person.

Anonymous said...

Interesting and believeable. Has anyone ever attempted to determine what percentage of white women have had sexual experiences with black males ? Hispanics ? What percentage had their first sexual intercourse with a black or hispanic ? What about age groups ? The Westchester leftist was of the first generation among whom any substantial portion ever went to bed with a black. In recent decades how much has the percentage risen ? Could it even be starting to fall a litle ? By now, it's probaly gone about as high as it ever will . If anybody wanted to discourage this, the most effective way might be to just publicize the statistics of much higher the rates of HIV and other veneral diseases are among nonwhite males than among white men. Of course, even raw data can be called "racist" . Maybe, sometimes facts are racist.

Anonymous said...

You guys are so lost. The map of the human genome has shown that the DNA of human populations across the globe is a continuum, not bluntly divided as had been erroneously supposed. That means that each race's DNA blurs into the others because humans have the same ancestors, groups of people who left the African continent between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago. The genes that are obviously different between races include those that enabled each population to adapt to new latitudes; the ones that maximised our success in particular environments, and protected us from the diseases that we were exposed to.
So are these differences significant and, more to the point, are they significant enough so that when they are brought together, there might be tangible benefits for people who are mixed-race?
The answer from some scientists who still do what could be called "racial science" appears to be yes on both counts.
Dr Mark Shriver, who studies human origins at Penn State University, is interested in ancestry, variations in skin and hair colour, facial features and height. He finds that observing traits that are obviously different between people from different parts of the world is a useful tool for studying evolution. This is because his research focuses on how our genes adapted to changing environments – research which helps him understand why certain populations are more at risk of developing diseases like type-2 diabetes, obesity, prostate cancer and high blood pressure.

Shriver's work has uncovered something else that is very interesting. He finds that mixed-race people are more symmetrical than the rest of us, and being more symmetrical translates into being more attractive, having less infection, being less stressed, and having greater genetic diversity.
Professor Bill Amos at Cambridge University has also been studying the genetic basis of human disease. He finds that in humans, an individual's level of genetic diversity can predict with astonishing accuracy how likely they are to survive parasites and infectious disease. In a recent study in Kenya, he found that low levels of diversity were strongly associated with death before the age of five.
Dr Gerome Breen of King's College London has been working in Brazil, a country in which 86 per cent of the population are mixed-race, whether they look white or black. Their 500-year history of miscegenation was an unhappy one, the result of European colonisation, exploitation of the native Amerindian population and a long history of African slavery.
In Brazil, Breen is able to do something even more remarkable than simply looking at the influence of genetic heritage on mixed and non-mixed people. This is also a country of great social inequity, and that means that he can separate out factors such as wealth, education and nutrition – the influence of environment from the influence of the genes. His study was concerned with post-traumatic stress disorder, one of the most common psychiatric consequences of exposure to violent crime. The preliminary results seem to indicate that people who live with the unrelenting violence and extreme poverty of the favelas or city slums experience the same levels of stress as those who live in the affluent suburbs. But the kicker is this: affluent people are overwhelmingly of European ancestry alone, but the favelas are home to people of mixed race.
Mixed-race people are more likely to have a good functioning copy of each gene that we inherit from our mother and our father, which means they are more likely to have healthy biological systems to enable them to cope with stress.

If this really is the case, then taken together there is now good evidence that the more genetically diverse among us are indeed more likely to be more attractive, have better physical health, and more robust mental health, too.

Anonymous said...

You guys are so lost. The map of the human genome has shown that the DNA of human populations across the globe is a continuum, not bluntly divided as had been erroneously supposed. That means that each race's DNA blurs into the others because humans have the same ancestors, groups of people who left the African continent between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago. The genes that are obviously different between races include those that enabled each population to adapt to new latitudes; the ones that maximised our success in particular environments, and protected us from the diseases that we were exposed to.
So are these differences significant and, more to the point, are they significant enough so that when they are brought together, there might be tangible benefits for people who are mixed-race?
The answer from some scientists who still do what could be called "racial science" appears to be yes on both counts.
Dr Mark Shriver, who studies human origins at Penn State University, is interested in ancestry, variations in skin and hair colour, facial features and height. He finds that observing traits that are obviously different between people from different parts of the world is a useful tool for studying evolution. This is because his research focuses on how our genes adapted to changing environments – research which helps him understand why certain populations are more at risk of developing diseases like type-2 diabetes, obesity, prostate cancer and high blood pressure.

Shriver's work has uncovered something else that is very interesting. He finds that mixed-race people are more symmetrical than the rest of us, and being more symmetrical translates into being more attractive, having less infection, being less stressed, and having greater genetic diversity.
Professor Bill Amos at Cambridge University has also been studying the genetic basis of human disease. He finds that in humans, an individual's level of genetic diversity can predict with astonishing accuracy how likely they are to survive parasites and infectious disease. In a recent study in Kenya, he found that low levels of diversity were strongly associated with death before the age of five.
Dr Gerome Breen of King's College London has been working in Brazil, a country in which 86 per cent of the population are mixed-race, whether they look white or black. Their 500-year history of miscegenation was an unhappy one, the result of European colonisation, exploitation of the native Amerindian population and a long history of African slavery.
In Brazil, Breen is able to do something even more remarkable than simply looking at the influence of genetic heritage on mixed and non-mixed people. This is also a country of great social inequity, and that means that he can separate out factors such as wealth, education and nutrition – the influence of environment from the influence of the genes. His study was concerned with post-traumatic stress disorder, one of the most common psychiatric consequences of exposure to violent crime. The preliminary results seem to indicate that people who live with the unrelenting violence and extreme poverty of the favelas or city slums experience the same levels of stress as those who live in the affluent suburbs. But the kicker is this: affluent people are overwhelmingly of European ancestry alone, but the favelas are home to people of mixed race.
Mixed-race people are more likely to have a good functioning copy of each gene that we inherit from our mother and our father, which means they are more likely to have healthy biological systems to enable them to cope with stress.

If this really is the case, then taken together there is now good evidence that the more genetically diverse among us are indeed more likely to be more attractive, have better physical health, and more robust mental health, too.